New video of all three towers

You guys still debating this nonsense. Wow.

Large planes, full of fuel, hit buildings at high speeds, and some speculate explosives were used to bring the buildings down.
My question is why?
Why do you want to think it something more than the obvious?

It would be great if someone could look into "why" the government claims they were not aware this would happen.
Now that is something that I question myself, along with others who were part of that horrible day.
That would be a better endeavor in my opinion.

In the meantime, good luck with your Bigfoot was instructed by OBL to place Thermite charges on the support columns theory.

Peace.

reply to post by NYCMedic


I asked you this before, but when exactly did you become convinced of what it was that caused those buildings to fail, and what exactly convinced you?

Originally posted by NYCMedic
It would be great if someone could look into "why" the government claims they were not aware this would happen.
Now that is something that I question myself, along with others who were part of that horrible day.
That would be a better endeavor in my opinion.

There are people out there who will call deride you with ad hom's, etc. for even thinking that they could have known something and not done anything to stop it, too.

The truth is none of the relevant people really care about us at all. They got the warnings, but they also knew there was nothing they could do anything because it's our own military and intelligence agencies funding, providing resources to and training the patsies. So they ignore the warnings or even say they never saw them, when we know they existed. Even foreign countries were calling us and warning us. At least two of the accused hijackers were trained on US military bases, and CNN covered that story. That's just one tie among many.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

There was over 8 seconds of sequential collapse before the building started down.
See page 31 of the NIST progress report for the video analysis.
wtc.nist.gov...

reply to post by pteridine


That's fine but the roof line still accelerated at free-fall.

That much wasn't timed, it was directly measured. You like to add time to the total global collapse time, because when you average out not moving at all with dropping at free-fall, then of course you get something slower than free-fall. But that's still not what the roof line actually accelerated at, but only an abstract figure that represents not the instantaneous acceleration, but the average acceleration over a longer period of time.


The bottom line is, when that roof starts folding down onto the rest of the building, all four corners going simultaneously, the rate at which it accelerates is 9.8m/s^2.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by bsbray11]

How about Newtons Second law?


physics lesson

Free fall means that there is 'no resistance' to the falling object. So in effect, stating that it was a free fall is incorrect. It is not affected by gravity only. I believe it has something to do with how fast you reach terminal velocity.

Also, NIST means nothing to most people in this forum. I think it is an informative work but BSBray wouldn't line a bird cage with it. THanks for the link though.



[edit on 12-1-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
Free fall means that there is 'no resistance' to the falling object. So in effect, stating that it was a free fall is incorrect. It is not affected by gravity only. I believe it has something to do with how fast you reach terminal velocity.

What are you talking about? Free fall is a = 9.8m/s^2, something like 32 feet per second per second. Terminal velocity presents itself later as drag increases with velocity. What you just stated is why WTC7 falling at free-fall is a pinning fact against any theory that doesn't involve blowing out all the structure ahead of it dropping. It was gravity only, after it was blown apart. 9.8m/s^2. That's how it measures out. Not even enough difference to account for all the air in the building that would have caused drag.

reply to post by bsbray11

You said: "It was gravity only, after it was blown apart."

Do I see a theory, BS? It was blown apart? No thermite?

reply to post by pteridine


You interpret "blown apart" to mean what, exactly? Could be HE, a huge variety of different types of bombs, etc., even at least one existing thermite technology that I know of. Doesn't sound very specific to me. But does that mean you think the guys walking away from WTC7 with bolt cutters and dust masks saying, "You hear that? She's about to blow," were talking about WTC7 being demolished?

[edit on 12-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You said:"You interpret "blown apart" to mean what, exactly? Could be HE, a huge variety of different types of bombs, etc., even at least one existing thermite technology that I know of."
I interpret it as blown apart, in an explosive sense. Thermite only makes molten metal, no "apart blowing" there. I'm interested in the 'huge variety of different types of bombs.' What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by pteridine
I interpret it as blown apart, in an explosive sense.

What's "an explosive sense"? Even aluminum dust will "explode" with a velocity of a couple thousand feet per second, almost like gunpowder, but before something is an explosive in the technical sense it would have to be more like over 10k feet per second. That may or may not be what I was talking about. I didn't specify -- on purpose. I don't know. Sue me, or better yet, give me thousands of dollars and access to evidence and I'll give you a better theory.

Thermite only makes molten metal, no "apart blowing" there.

See above. Aluminum dust is a component of thermite. The finer the particles, the more readily they react. Nanothermites are "explosive," but not in the technical sense like I mentioned above. They have a much lower velocity, but they still spew molten iron, so there are devices that can produce forceful jets of molten iron onto columns. I've even seen video of a crude machine built to demonstrate the idea slice right through a thin beam. Steven Jones used to host it on his website, and you could probably still find one there.

Not saying these were necessarily used, I'm just saying the possibilities are almost endless.

I'm interested in the 'huge variety of different types of bombs.' What do you mean by that?

Say you are planning these demolitions. It's a staged event meant to alter world politics, and initiate wars in a time of relative peace. You have access to the Twin Towers to destroy and sear a traumatizing event and image in the minds of people worldwide, but the problem is that the buildings are too large to bring down conventionally and rigging them with a sophisticated demolition set up would make people very suspicious as to how Islamic terrorists could have done this unaided. People were already wondering that just from the fact that the 2nd and especially 3rd planes weren't intercepted, and obviously from all the other things that still have us here debating what really happened that day.

So the plane impacts and fires have to be the reason they fell, officially, and effort would have been made to make that appear to have been the case. Conventional HE's won't really provide that. You would have to get more creative. If you were clever you would also try to opt for technology that isn't widely known to the public, to make it that much more difficult to investigate.

Say the military industrial complex was involved at least with the manufacturing of the technology involved here, whether anyone in the companies themselves were aware of its use or not. This happens to be my opinion. So tell me why these people wouldn't have access to any type of bomb available to the military, including classified designs? And this is neglecting to consider any other types of devices our military could have access to.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You said:"What's "an explosive sense"? Even aluminum dust will "explode" with a velocity of a couple thousand feet per second, almost like gunpowder, but before something is an explosive in the technical sense it would have to be more like over 10k feet per second."

Aluminum dust does not explode unless it is dispersed and ignited. Rapid oxidation heats and expands the air, producing a shockwave. There are other bad effects on the target. Search on "thermobaric weapon." Thermite makes hot metal. It is not a demolition charge.

You said:"That may or may not be what I was talking about. I didn't specify -- on purpose. I don't know. Sue me, or better yet, give me thousands of dollars and access to evidence and I'll give you a better theory."

If I was paying for a better theory, I would get knowledgable personnel.

You said: "Say the military industrial complex was involved at least with the manufacturing of the technology involved here, whether anyone in the companies themselves were aware of its use or not. This happens to be my opinion. So tell me why these people wouldn't have access to any type of bomb available to the military, including classified designs? And this is neglecting to consider any other types of devices our military could have access to."

Bombs make noise. Super secret bombs from 2001 make noise. They must be placed on the target, wired, and set off. You have seen the WTC#7 video. The collapse was sequential. Did you hear any explosions? Why were the penthouses blown up before the rest of the building? You'll need another magic device that is relatively quiet, able to masquerade as a natural consequence, and can drop a building.

Fire

Originally posted by pteridine
Aluminum dust does not explode unless it is dispersed and ignited.

You certainly can disperse it in air and ignite it, but you don't have to. In a fine enough powder all you have to do is light it, and the oxygen is already exposed to a large amount of surface area. Similarly to how it pulls the oxygen away from the iron oxide in a thermite reaction, except the oxygen comes directly from the air instead. There are even videos of kids on YouTube flash igniting tiny shreds of aluminum foil.

Rapid oxidation heats and expands the air, producing a shockwave. There are other bad effects on the target. Search on "thermobaric weapon." Thermite makes hot metal. It is not a demolition charge.

I have a hard time finding coherency in this. Other "bad effects" on the target? What is "bad" to a steel column? You only tell me to do a search for something I'm already familiar with, and mention nothing else about it. Thermite makes metal hot? Uh, yeah? All in all I can say I'm deeply impressed.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, a demolition charge is what a demolition charge does. I don't care what you call a "demolition charge;" if it will bring down a building then it's on the right track.

Bombs make noise.

And you, of all people, would know this, huh?

Super secret bombs from 2001 make noise.

Eliminating noise is not the problem. Making the noise not stand out is the problem. You have several variables to play with: overpressure strength, the container, the direction of the blast, and I would even say they can play with the frequencies that these things resonate at. So you hear deep "booms" instead of high-pitched "cracks."

My point is that plenty of noise was made. People could hear and feel those buildings coming down in Brooklyn. There are numerous witness testimonies of "boom boom boom boom boom," etc. as the buildings fell. I don't know how you guys get off ignoring this kind of stuff on a daily basis, but you know you can never debunk us saying they were any type of bomb or whatever the hell making all those noises and causing all the basement damage, etc., because you don't KNOW what they were or what was doing it. How can you prove or disprove what caused the explosions, if you don't really even know? You just have to put up with the fact that we are speculating that that's exactly what happened. I hope you don't really think simply forming a contrary opinion is a form of "debunking." It's just disagreeing.

You'll need another magic device that is relatively quiet, able to masquerade as a natural consequence, and can drop a building.

I don't think WTC7 even looks natural. If you do, then more power to you, I don't care what you think. I think it looks like a conventional demolition, and people have been saying this for years (not without reason, obviously). Ever heard of a "firing sequence"? Yes, of course there is a sequence to it. You don't just explode the entire thing at once and let it fall where it may. As far as it being quiet, I don't see why it should be any different than with the towers. I haven't even heard good quality audio of WTC7 collapsing.

It was not gravity only and it was not free fall. It encountered the resistance of the building. Therefore, it was not free fall. Free fall means that there is nothing but gravity working upon something. if there is nothing it will fall faster and in this case it did not. We are talking fractions of seconds but it is all 10th grade physics.

The WTC 7 had not only the resistance but also the extra weight once the lower support columns were removed. There are pictures and videos that show the upper portion of the building buckling and then seconds later the collapse.

My question is, why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? This is a simple logistical question that no one can answer.

Also, once again, WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.

Now, when a building is imploded, those things remain in the rubble.

reply to post by bsbray11

You said: “You certainly can disperse it in air and ignite it, but you don't have to. In a fine enough powder all you have to do is light it, and the oxygen is already exposed to a large amount of surface area.”
Using aluminum as an explosive requires an oxidant. Unless there is an integral oxidant or the aluminum is dispersed in air, there will not be a shockwave of any significance. See “mass transfer limitations” in any ChemE book.

You say: “Other "bad effects" on the target? What is "bad" to a steel column? You only tell me to do a search for something I'm already familiar with, and mention nothing else about it. Thermite makes metal hot? Uh, yeah? All in all I can say I'm deeply impressed.”
The target is usually people. They are burned, deprived of air, and physically thrown about by the shockwave from the blast and the following back wash as the air rushes toward the oxygen depleted zone. There are better things to destroy buildings.
I didn’t say “Thermite makes metal hot” I said “Thermite makes hot metal.” That means that it doesn’t explode and move things around. For your comprehension I will rephrase and say “All the PE is converted to heat and there is no KE.”

You said: “Eliminating noise is not the problem. Making the noise not stand out is the problem. You have several variables to play with: overpressure strength, the container, the direction of the blast, and I would even say they can play with the frequencies that these things resonate at. So you hear deep "booms" instead of high-pitched "cracks."
The problem with playing with the “several variables” is that you also have to cut large supports. An explosive that would do that wouldn’t just sound like buildings falling down, it would be a much larger bang. Of course, you will claim secret, quiet nanoparticulate aluminum explosives that leave no trace, a team in black fatigues to carry them into an unstable, burning building, on short notice, on a senseless mission to destroy an already gutted building, and an evil mastermind to press the red button on the Radio Shack transmitter after he casually extends the antenna. Keep watching those movies.
You said: “I don't think WTC7 even looks natural. If you do, then more power to you, I don't care what you think. I think it looks like a conventional demolition, and people have been saying this for years (not without reason, obviously).”
People say a lot of things. What is the rationale for taking down #7? The center of #6 fell in. Fire or demolition? What’s natural? This is a one-time event. You read some rants, watched some youtube videos and said “it looks like a conventional demolition.” Based on what? What is the tallest building demolished on youtube? What collapse do you have to compare it to? What evidence is there for a demolition of WTC7? Unexplained erosion on beams does not automatically mean willful demolition, it means unexplained erosion.
Keep your beliefs but ask yourself what you will do if someone explains the erosion without demolition devices. Will you ever be satisfied or will you need a conspiracy? There are better possibilities out there for conspiracy.

Originally posted by pteridine
Using aluminum as an explosive requires an oxidant.

Oxidant = oxygen = in the air.

Unless there is an integral oxidant or the aluminum is dispersed in air, there will not be a shockwave of any significance.

I already told you the only use out of the velocity at which this stuff expands, unless it's greatly increased or combined with something else, is only useful for producing a relatively powerful jet of molten iron. It's nowhere near what a high explosive does and wouldn't be used the same way.

The target is usually people.

Well then obviously you're going to have to push that out of mind and only consider effects on steel columns, because killing people isn't significant towards bringing a massive skyscraper down.

There are better things to destroy buildings.

Once again, you would know, right?

For your comprehension I will rephrase and say “All the PE is converted to heat and there is no KE.”

There is no KE where? This is starting to get good. WTC7 didn't collapse after all?

None of the PE was used if it fell at free fall. Not converted into ANYTHING else. That's why it was able to fall at the rate of gravity: no kinetic energy was lost. If it hit something, or had to bend or destroy something, then it would have slowed down. Like, an entire building? Yeah, it should have slowed down. Even air causes falling objects to slow below free-fall rate, when it isn't deliberately pushed out of the way first.

Of course, you will claim secret, quiet nanoparticulate aluminum explosives that leave no trace,

You can't say no trace was left because you don't even know what I think did it. There were elevated amounts of unusual chemicals in sol-gels, etc. But you would probably say no traces anyway, because you are a troll like that and only here to argue.

a team in black fatigues to carry them into an unstable, burning building, on short notice

Yeah, you're putting words in my mouth now, and intentionally thinking the stupidest possible things that you can. I wonder at what point it becomes appropriate to hit the ignore button.

on a senseless mission to destroy an already gutted building

Gutted? Yeah, ok. I know I won't see any evidence of that. You are just ranting and making things up, the same way you just put words in my mouth.

Yeah, people do say a lot of things. There are a lot of possibilities. But people have been cultivating this awesome system of thought in the West called "logic," and "reasoning," and even "science," and when you stick rigorously to those things and NOT appeals to authority, assuming critical variables, straight arguing with people and putting words in their mouths, emotional rants, etc., you will begin to understand what did and did not happen. But you have to actually care and want to know, not just want to argue with people because you're developing your ego and you get feel-good bursts of endorphins when you defend your intellectual territory (you do), just like an animal that defends its physical territory. You can keep your views, my friend, and I promise you I won't give a damn. Stop ranting, stop throwing in emotionally charged words, and bias, and just stick to the damned points and be logical or I'm going to stop feeding my energy into this.

reply to post by bsbray11


BS,
You really aren't paying attention. Possibly, a rising kundalini has confused you. You suggested that aluminum dust could explode "like gunpowder." I explained how it couldn't and mentioned thermobarics. You needed more information and I told you that they damaged people, too. They aren't good for buildings unless you want a big bang and a wide area of destruction, like any FAE.
You made that into a thermite argument. The small particles only affect the rate of reaction of iron oxide with Al, not the final energy output or the temperature. If you add more Al and a little oxidzer, it can get hotter. Search for aluminum oxide inclusions in the sulfide eroded beams and see if you can find any. All I saw was some calcium in the x-ray data but I didn't look at every one.
The PE/KE comment was related to the energy of a thermite type reaction, not the building collapsing. There is no blast effect to thermite. It doesn't provide work, only hot metal. This isn't difficult.
The rest of your rant looks amazingly emotional and angry. Perhaps some arguments of the no conspiracy contingent are crowding out the arguments of the conspiracy folks and you don't like that.
I really don't expect you to be convinced of anything. You have already made up your mind that is is a grand conspiracy even when there is no evidence and no real need for any conspiracy other than the planes striking the towers. Do not be dissuaded. Try some of your arguments on randi.org, maybe they'll treat you better. Those guys are pussycats.
Study hard, get your degree, and go to work for the NSA. If you ever get your clearances and access, you'll be able to see what the rest of us can't. Of course, you won't be able to tell, but at least you'll know.

Originally posted by pteridine
You really aren't paying attention.

I think I'm putting you on ignore after I post this.

You suggested that aluminum dust could explode "like gunpowder."

Yes, because gunpowder is also a powder that "ignites" the way fine aluminum dust does, and similarly fine nanothermites, even if they aren't the same velocities.

I explained how it couldn't and mentioned thermobarics.

Yeah, "mentioning" it doesn't help. Neither does just telling me I need more info. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. Give me specific information, or don't even bring it up.

The small particles only affect the rate of reaction of iron oxide with Al, not the final energy output or the temperature.

Never claimed they did either. This is getting old...


And of course, no response to you putting words in my mouth, evidence that WTC7 was gutted, etc., etc. Go get your fix from someone else, troll.

C'mon, where are you going? I am so sick of this debates/conversations/wars ending the same way each time. I asked some questions and I just want some answers.

1. why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? This is a simple logistical question that no one can answer.

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.

reply to post by bsbray11

You said: "Yes, because gunpowder is also a powder that "ignites" the way fine aluminum dust does, and similarly fine nanothermites, even if they aren't the same velocities. "
They don't. Black powder and nitrocellulosed based powder contain both oxidant and reductant. So do thermites. They are independent of availability of atmospheric oxygen. You probably never took a college chemistry course as an electronics student. I understand your ignorance.

You said:"Yeah, "mentioning" it doesn't help. Neither does just telling me I need more info. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. Give me specific information, or don't even bring it up."
You did say you were knowledgeable. You do know how to look up things on the web, after all you have been quoting about every 911CT around and you certainly didn't think anything up on your own. Look up thermobaric explosive. Wikipedia will do.

I said:"The small particles only affect the rate of reaction of iron oxide with Al, not the final energy output or the temperature."
You said:"Never claimed they did either. This is getting old..."
But you were the one invoking the nanoparticulate aluminum as a magic elixir. I explained to you that I had searched the metallographic evidence of the eroded beams and saw no aluminum oxide inclusions.
You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to explosives or demolitions.

And you accuse me of being a troll? That really hurts the old kundalini and racks up the chakras. I asked you to propose theories of who, what, why, or how and you came up empty. All you can say is that it Feels Wrong. No rationale. Movies of demolitions of five story buildings aren't the same as WTC7. Your technical background is sadly lacking and you apparently have no basis for what you think other than the 911 CT sites.
Even after I explain energetic materials to you, you still petulantly demand more information. I am the troll? Do you need help reading, trollette?

Originally posted by esdad71
C'mon, where are you going? I am so sick of this debates/conversations/wars ending the same way each time.

Who is having a war, Esdad? I wasn't even responding to you; I'm not "going" anywhere.

You've been posting here for a while. I know exactly what your "questions" are and I'm sure I and lots of other people have responded to them already too.

I asked some questions and I just want some answers.

You're in good company. But you're asking the wrong person. Where does taxpayer money go? To me? I wish I could only keep my own taxes.

1. why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed?

How do you know they didn't try? And either way, your question doesn't mean anything in the end. Just because we can't tell you why they did or didn't do something a certain way, doesn't mean they still didn't do it just that way. So what's the point, Esdad?

2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives?

What kind of explosives are you looking for, and why?

WTC7 came down at free-fall. That is evidence of something other than the PE/KE bringing it down. That's really all you need to know, the rest is just details Esdad. Who cares? Unless you can PROVE that it would have been impossible by any method and any devices physically possible whatsoever, and thus prove a negative (you've heard of this. can you say... impossible?) then it doesn't matter to me at all.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by bsbray11]